FOR THEM TO GO OVER OR A LOT OF
DEBATE OVER HIS GUILT AND IT
SEEMED CLEAR TO MANY PEOPLE IN
THE OUTCOME.
THEY WERE SATISFIED TO SEE THE
JURY FELT THAT WAY AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT UPDATE
AND YOUR REPORTING THROUGHOUT
THE TRIAL.
>>> WE WILL GO NOW TO DAVID
WEINSTEIN.
HE IS A FORMER ASSISTANT U.S.
ATTORNEY AND IS CURRENTLY WITH
THE HENSHAW LAW FIRM.
>> I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWING THIS CASE MOSTLY.
WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THE
VERDICT?
>> I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT
THERE IS A GUILTY VERDICT.
NOR MY SURPRISED AT HOW SOME
PEOPLE THINK THIS WAS A QUICK
VERDICT.
THEY SPENT 10 HOURS OVER THE
COURSE OF TWO DAYS AND THEY
HEARD 14 DAYS WORTH OF
TESTIMONY.
SO THAT IS ONLY FOUR HOURS
AN ACROSS THE BOARD VERDICT.
IT MEANS THESE JURORS WENT BACK
AND THEY FELT THAT WHAT DEREK
CHAUVIN DID WAS NOT WHAT A
REASONABLE POLICE OFFICER WOULD
DO.
THAT DECISION, ONCE THEY MADE
IT, MADE IT EASY FOR THEM TO
CONVICT HIM OF ALL THREE
CHARGES BECAUSE THAT WAS AT THE
CORE OF WHAT THEY HAD TO
CONSIDER FOR ALL THREE OF THESE
>> YOU HAVE HANDLED MANY
CRIMINAL TRIALS IN YOUR CAREER.
GIVE ME YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHAT
YOU SAW FROM THIS PROSECUTION?
A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGHT MAYBE
THEY WERE CALLING TOO MANY
EXPERT WITNESSES IN THIS WAS
DRAGGING ON AND THEY WERE
POSSIBLY BORING THE MEMBERS OF
THE JURY.
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THEIR
PERFORMANCE?
>> I THOUGHT THEY DID AN
EXCELLENT JOB, ELLIOTT.
THERE IS NO MAGIC NUMBER AS TO
HOW MANY WITNESSES YOU CAN
CALL.
THEY EXPECTED THE DEFENSE, AND
THE DEFENSE DID THIS, THEY
ATTACKED EXPERTS.
THEY NEEDED TO CALL A
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EXPERTS
AND CONTRARY TO WHAT WE ALL SEE
ON TELEVISION, NOT EVERY
WITNESS IS A REALLY EXCITING
ONE.
THEY DID THE BEST THEY COULD
WITH THESE WITNESSES, BUT THEY
SAID IT OUT AND IT OBVIOUSLY
PAID OFF BECAUSE THE JURORS
WERE ABLE TO RELY ON THE
TESTIMONY OF THESE EXPERTS TO
DETERMINE WITHOUT HEARING FROM
HAPPENED, THAT HIS REACTION WAS
NOT ONE THAT A REASONABLE
OFFICER, A REASONABLY TRAINED
POLICE OFFICER, WOULD HAVE
UNDERTAKEN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
IT DID PAY OFF THE PROSECUTION
TO CALL OLD THOSE WITNESSES.
>> OF COURSE DEREK CHAUVIN HAS
A RIGHT TO AN APPEAL.
IN FACT THE JUDGE HIMSELF
ACTUALLY SEEMED TO TEA UP
GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL BY
MENTIONING SOME COMMENTS FROM A
DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKER.
A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID THE
JUDGE MENTIONED SOMETHING LIKE
THAT IN THE COURTROOM SO WHAT
OPPORTUNITIES DO YOU SEE FOR
THE DEFENSE TEAM TO SEIZE UPON
AS FAR AS AN APPEAL GOES?
>> THEY OBJECTED TO A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT LINES OF QUESTIONING
THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL.
THOSE ARE ERRORS THAT ARE
NATURALLY OCCURRING MOST
TRIALS.
AS FROM THE COMMENTS MADE
OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM,
WITHOUT THE JUDGE SITTING DOWN,
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE
JURORS TO ASK THEM, DID YOU
HEAR ANY COMMENTS MADE OUTSIDE
OF THE COURTROOM, DID THAT
AFFECT YOUR VERDICT?
DELIBERATIONS, IT IS A BIT OF A
RED HERRING OF AN ISSUE.
BUT LOOK, PEOPLE SHOULDN'T
ON WHAT TAKES PLACE BUT EACH OF
THE JURORS TOOK AN OATH.
THEY SAID THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN
TO WHAT HAPPENED OUTSIDE THE
ROOM.
THEY WOULD ONLY PAY ATTENTION
TO WHAT WAS SAID INSIDE THE
COURTROOM AND PERHAPS IT WAS
NOT THE BEST COMMENT FOR
WITH A HUGE AUDIENCE WATCHING,
BUT AS LONG AS THOSE JURORS
DIDN'T HEAR AND RELY UPON THAT
COMMENT, THAT IS NOT A REASON
TO AFFECT THIS VERDICT.
>> A FINAL QUESTION.
THE JURY HAS SPOKEN AND
CHAUVIN IS FACING?
>> UNDER THE STATUTE FOR THE
HIGHEST CRIME CONVICTED, HE IS
LOOKING AT A MAXIMUM OF 40
YEARS.
BUT AS WE ALL KNOW, THAT IS NOT
THE GUIDELINES HE IS LOOKING AT
OUR BETWEEN 10 1/2 TO 15 YEARS.
THE JUDGE CAN EXCEED THOSE
GUIDELINES AND IF THERE ARE
TALKED ABOUT THE BLAKELY
FACTORS BUT THE PROSECUTION IS
CERTAINLY GOING TO SUBMIT
AGGRAVATING FACTORS AND IT WILL
SUBMIT MITIGATING FACTORS.
SUGGESTED RANGE OF ABOUT 10 1/2
TO 15 YEARS GIVEN THE FACT HE
IS CONVICTED OF THREE DIFFERENT
CRIMES BUT FROM THE SAME
VICTIM.
THE JUDGE COULD SENTENCE THEM
ALL THE WAY UP TO 40 YEARS AND
HE WILL SERVE TWO THIRDS OF
THAT TIME AND NO PAROLE IN